Telltale should give their games away and let people pay what they think the games are worth. -- People are already getting them for free, but can't give donations back without paying the set prices.
Yandros i like the point you made here. Since we can get games for free when we actually buy games is for “donating” purpose to support the developers for creating a good game. I am curious as if a company ever try that.
Pirated games can, to a certain extent, potentially be free marketing. Two friends of mine actually bought the game after running it through just because they thought it was real good. And I think that's kind of the point, a company that produces great games and doesn't try to screw their customers doesn't even have to worry about illegal copying that much. People will buy it if they like it.
I actually don't think they should try to protect their games better. In fact, I have chosen not to buy several games in the recent past because their mechanisms were just too harsh (DRM, for example) although the games were actually quite good and I would have loved playing them. But as a legal customer I don't want to feel like a criminal.. and no, I don't want some freaky online activation with a limit of 3 activations or so.
1. Welcome to the forums.
2. You're right, when DRM impeedes the rights of genuine customers they get a better product by downloading a version that has been stripped of it. This is especially true for technologies such as "ICT" on BD's (as the non-genuine product will work better).
Yandros, you seem to be voluntarily ignoring my point.
First of all: every PC executes binary code in a different way, right as you say. But it absolutely doesn't get "modified". This is just a poor lie that looks like an excuse for pirating.
A program is just a series of instructions that are executed by a computer, the only writing part of its processing is to the RAM for the runtime operations.
So, whoever told you that binary code gets modified as read by a computer was wrong, I assure you.
Well this is just a silly argument. I could easily write a runtime patch, which just injects a DLL into the 'running copy' in RAM, and modifies the bits from there, to exactly the same effect. There is nothing special about the on-disk copy, it is just another instance of the same pattern.
As for my example, which seems clear enough, there IS a damage to a property. We're not speaking about your PC or about what's inside it: we're talking about the company's product, which gets modified and so damaged. It's inside your computer, but it's not yours. Once again, consider the fact that you're not buying the bits, you're buying the right to play the game forever as much as you want.
You can't do more than that.
I too have some skeletons in the wardrobe, as anyone. But at least I'm fair, and when I pirated a game I ADMITTED I was committing a crime.
Modifying bits inside my computer is what my computer automatically does all the time. It does not damage another person's physical property to modify bits inside my computer. Even if we accept your argument, the just 'punishment' for the 'crime' would be replacing the damaged property -- so that would be just undoing the patch at some later date.
But in any case, I don't get the second part of your argument. How you become owner of the software if EULA isn't binding you? It doesn't bind me, but still if I cracked the demo, I wouldn't own license to TOMI.
Well the software isn't a thing to own at that point. If you are gifted a binary -- a package of bits -- and that gift is unconditional, then you now own that instance of that package of bits, just like if you were unconditionally gifted a car you would own that car. It's only legally something other than an unconditional gift if it is accompanied with a contract, but the free demo isn't; that is unless you agree to the EULA.
But you guys are completely missing the point here: don't you see that your own enthusiasm for making sure telltale gets their revenue is the best argument in favour of lifting piracy restrictions. If no one were outraged people are getting the game for free -- without paying -- then I'd actually be a little concerned. But everyone here is of such good conscience that not only are they willing to pay for the game, but they will take time out of their day to argue against anyone who suggests NOT paying might be technically legal
Copyright started as a monopoly privilege granted by the king and it will end as a monopoly crime, supported by no court anywhere. The fact that game developers still receive money for their games is a testament to the honesty of players, because 99% of popular games can be acquired for free, and all consoles can be modded to run burnt games.
Let me just clarify about the console statuses. The PS3 is not moddable, it is a fully encrypted platform that would in theory take decades if not more to crack by brute force, and that no-one has yet to be able to pirate software for it. The 360 is the same, however, a weakness was discovered in the firmware that has allowed people to flash it to accept non-original discs. However, it has not been cracked, and will not run out-of-region discs or usigned content. The wii is the only current gen console to have been more or less fully craked, but I must admit it doesn't interest me much, as I don't share people enthusiasm for it.
If you wanna draw point from all this, it would be that more and more developers will move to consoles exlusivly, for while piracy is still possible on some machines, the threshold and technical know-how involved means it only affects a minuscule portion of their potential customer base.
I personally feel that the episodic format being sold only as a package leads to a lot of lost sales. I'd have bought them one-by-one (or as a package had I been assured I could get the disc shipped to a foreign address, but that's besides the point) and I know many others were expecting to be able to buy them one at a time for $8 each or whatever.
However, as the package is a 5-episode "take-it-or-leave-it" deal, I think Telltale should have made the full episode 1 available for free (or, because they probably need to start making money back quickly, at least sell the first episode separately).
That way, you get people hooked on the game who want to know what happens next. And lots more people will pay in that scenario, rather than risk all their cash at once - it's a proven marketing technique.
I know that demos are supposed to do this, but they don't leave you with the same sense of "I've come so far... what happens next?" that playing the full first episode might leave you with. I believe Telltale have done it before with other games, but that it's usually a middle-of-the-series episode. If that's true, that wouldn't make me personally want to even try it out. Who wants something where they don't know what happened before and don't know what happens next???
But you guys are completely missing the point here: don't you see that your own enthusiasm for making sure telltale gets their revenue is the best argument in favour of lifting piracy restrictions. If no one were outraged people are getting the game for free -- without paying -- then I'd actually be a little concerned. But everyone here is of such good conscience that not only are they willing to pay for the game, but they will take time out of their day to argue against anyone who suggests NOT paying might be technically legal
Again, you just have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever recieved a "review copy" of a DVD? I have, I can tell you the differnece: 1. it's legal for me to sell/buy/trade/give and rent any retail DVD disc. 2. But as soon as a try and sell/trade/rent a review copy of a DVD I'm comitting a crime.
3. And guess what? They both contain the same "bits".
Modifying bits inside my computer is what my computer automatically does all the time. It does not damage another person's physical property to modify bits inside my computer. Even if we accept your argument, the just 'punishment' for the 'crime' would be replacing the damaged property -- so that would be just undoing the patch at some later date.
For example if I gave you a digital image i created and you changed it would be legal as long as you didn't sell it or make it public etc except if you agreed not to change it. Physical property is something entirely different thing
But you guys are completely missing the point here: don't you see that your own enthusiasm for making sure telltale gets their revenue is the best argument in favour of lifting piracy restrictions. If no one were outraged people are getting the game for free -- without paying -- then I'd actually be a little concerned. But everyone here is of such good conscience that not only are they willing to pay for the game, but they will take time out of their day to argue against anyone who suggests NOT paying might be technically legal
Who cares if it is legal or not. It's just wrong thing to do. People don't care if its legal or not. What the matter with you, because you think its legal you can do whatever you like with things that you don't own?
Again, you just have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever recieved a "review copy" of a DVD? I have, I can tell you the differnece: 1. it's legal for me to sell/buy/trade/give and rent any retail DVD disc. 2. But as soon as a try and sell/trade/rent a review copy of a DVD I'm comitting a crime.
3. And guess what? They both contain the same "bits".
Well I assume you are given a review disc under contract. Therefore if you rent, gifted or sold your review disc, you would be breaking your contract with the other party. But as I already pointed out three times, you have made no contract with telltale when you download their free demo. It is free, unconditionally so. Until you agree to the EULA (and assuming the EULA is legally binding) you have made no contract and there for no contract can be enforced with respect to the bits.
If you wanna draw point from all this, it would be that more and more developers will move to consoles exlusivly, for while piracy is still possible on some machines, the threshold and technical know-how involved means it only affects a minuscule portion of their potential customer base.
Interesting observation. I think consoles are more of a niche market. I personally don't like them very much, the games are overpriced and generally are lacking in storyline and gameplay. The controls are brutish. They have a niche market, like Apple, but I doubt there will be any significant movement toward consoles over and beyond what has already occurred. Locked-down platforms are tiresome and consumers quickly find that they want more freedom.
Let me just clarify about the console statuses. The PS3 is not moddable, it is a fully encrypted platform that would in theory take decades if not more to crack by brute force, and that no-one has yet to be able to pirate software for it.
It just a matter of time. It just need more time to crack because of its bluray drive and because is different. An example is the gamecube which because it had mini dvd discs it didn't have much demand to crack it
Who cares if it is legal or not. It's just wrong thing to do. People don't care if its legal or not. What the matter with you, because you think its legal you can do whatever you like with things that you don't own?
Maybe read the conversation you joined mid-way before you post, champ?
Well I assume you are given a review disc under contract. Therefore if you rent, gifted or sold your review disc, you would be breaking your contract with the other party. But as I already pointed out three times, you have made no contract with telltale when you download their free demo. It is free, unconditionally so. Until you agree to the EULA (and assuming the EULA is legally binding) you have made no contract and there for no contract can be enforced with respect to the bits.
You don't have to agree to a contract to make something illegal.
For example a hacker who hack a website who doesn't own. He didn't agree to anything but that doesn't make it legal
You don't have to agree to a contract to make something illegal.
For exaple a hacker who hack a website who doesn't own. He didn't agree to anything but that doesn't make it legal
I read the consersation i just gave my two-cents there. You filthy pirate
At no point did I say that I pirated the game.
Here's a book on contract law. If you start reading now, maybe you can knock some of the stupid out of your head before Christmas.
Yandros, I was talking about letting the game run PROPERLY, without self-made patches or whatsoever. Running an executable file does not modify the binary code at all.
However we'll probably disagree forever on the piracy problem, but what I don't really like about what you're saying is that you're trying to give philosophical excuses to piracy.
I'd agree if you said "give up, piracy will always be". But no, you're trying to deny that it's an illegal thing to do. I'd like you to just admit it's a crime.
You can say that it's useless to increase protection levels, you can say real fans will always pay for their game, that's fine to me and it's a good point.
But saying that "changing bits" is fair and legal is just wrong!
That's called piracy, you know?
I wasn't refering to you that you pirate games. I have actually support some of your argument. When you have an argument with someone you send the guy to read a book? That nice. Especially when you are the only in this thread to support such a thing.
Yandros, I was talking about letting the game run PROPERLY, without self-made patches or whatsoever. Running an executable file does not modify the binary code at all.
However we'll probably disagree forever on the piracy problem, but what I don't really like about what you're saying is that you're trying to give philosophical excuses to piracy.
I'd agree if you said "give up, piracy will always be". But no, you're trying to deny that it's an illegal thing to do. I'd like you to just admit it's a crime.
You can say that it's useless to increase protection levels, you can say real fans will always pay for their game, that's fine to me and it's a good point.
But saying that "changing bits" is fair and legal is just wrong!
That's called piracy, you know?
Well I am disagreeing on philosophical grounds, and for a good reason.
1. Patents and copyrights have held back technology considerably throughout the last 300 years.
2. Copyrights are unenforceable.
3. Horrible things are committed in the name of copyright -- such as criminal convictions, jail terms, and large fines for what is by definition a passive and peaceful activity.
4. Intellectual property, philosophically speaking, is not real property. And the only way it's "ownership" can be enforced is through the use of state aggression against peaceful individuals. It's the "you made your car look like my car, therefore I'm going to point a gun at you until you alter your behaviour to fit my ideals" law / right; a violation of basic individual sovereignty.
5. Evidence suggests that copyright or lack thereof has no effect on revenue, at least in the realm of software. If you provide good quality, people will pay you for your efforts. If you provide lax quality they will pay you less. Pretty simple.
Philosophically speaking, private property is always wrong.
But, again, philosophically speaking we could argue about EVERYTHING.
Even the use of money is a form of barter, we could disagree even with money's existence.
Or a murder: it's illegal because it's conventionally wrong to kill someone, but since everyhting's relative we could argue even on that.
Is it right that people must brake their instincts? Is the existence of laws right?
The fact is that we live in a society, we have conventions and ethic.
You live inside your house, which is protected by private property, I don't think you'd like me not to give a damn and occupy it.
So, we could cynically criticise everything speaking about philosophy, or just accept the fact that there are laws to be respected, unless we live under anarchy.
You're absolutely free to have your opinion, to fight for it, and even to pirate software 'cause you don't trust in copyright.
But you'll be unarguably breaking the law while doing it. Unarguably.
Here's a book on contract law. If you start reading now, maybe you can knock some of the stupid out of your head before Christmas.
Your understanding of contract law is clearly far from being complete (and I'm not talking about EULA's - I'm talking about Copyright).
1. Patents and copyrights have held back technology considerably throughout the last 300 years. What a load of extreme left-wing communist rubbish. 2. Copyrights are unenforceable. Copyrights ARE enforcable and entitle the author to the legal right of their intellectual property. Get over it. 3. Horrible things are committed in the name of copyright -- such as criminal convictions, jail terms, and large fines for what is by definition a passive and peaceful activity. (more left-wing mumble-jumble) 4. Intellectual property, philosophically speaking, is not real property. And the only way it's "ownership" can be enforced is through the use of state aggression against peaceful individuals. It's the "you made your car look like my car, therefore I'm going to point a gun at you until you alter your behaviour to fit my ideals" law / right; a violation of basic individual sovereignty. (YAWN) 5. Evidence suggests that copyright or lack thereof has no effect on revenue, at least in the realm of software. If you provide good quality, people will pay you for your efforts. If you provide lax quality they will pay you less. Pretty simple. Go back to your warez-forum where all your online pirating buddies are waiting for you, cause we're sick of hearing your rubbish here.
Your understanding of contract law is clearly far from being complete (and I'm not talking about EULA's - I'm talking about Copyright).
1. Patents and copyrights have held back technology considerably throughout the last 300 years. What a load of extreme left-wing communist rubbish. 2. Copyrights are unenforceable. Copyrights ARE enforcable and entitle the author to the legal right of their intellectual property. Get over it. 3. Horrible things are committed in the name of copyright -- such as criminal convictions, jail terms, and large fines for what is by definition a passive and peaceful activity. (more left-wing mumble-jumble) 4. Intellectual property, philosophically speaking, is not real property. And the only way it's "ownership" can be enforced is through the use of state aggression against peaceful individuals. It's the "you made your car look like my car, therefore I'm going to point a gun at you until you alter your behaviour to fit my ideals" law / right; a violation of basic individual sovereignty. (YAWN) 5. Evidence suggests that copyright or lack thereof has no effect on revenue, at least in the realm of software. If you provide good quality, people will pay you for your efforts. If you provide lax quality they will pay you less. Pretty simple. Go back to your warez-forum where all your online pirating buddies are waiting for you, cause we're sick of hearing your rubbish here.
Man, I ain't a communist, but communists have right to live. I disagree so much with Yandros, but considering his thoughts "left-wing mumble jumble" is really rude and makes you look like a right-wing fascist scum.
Philosophically speaking, private property is always wrong.
Absolutely disagree.
But, again, philosophically speaking we could argue about EVERYTHING.
Even the use of money is a form of barter, we could disagree even with money's existence.
Or a murder: it's illegal because it's conventionally wrong to kill someone, but since everyhting's relative we could argue even on that.
Everything isn't relative. And this is an utter misrepresentation of philosophy. Relativism is to philosophy as religion is to science.
Is it right that people must brake their instincts? Is the existence of laws right?
The fact is that we live in a society, we have conventions and ethic.
You live inside your house, which is protected by private property, I don't think you'd like me not to give a damn and occupy it.
So, we could cynically criticise everything speaking about philosophy, or just accept the fact that there are laws to be respected, unless we live under anarchy.
You're absolutely free to have your opinion, to fight for it, and even to pirate software 'cause you don't trust in copyright.
My arguments have a firm philosophical grounding in the Aristotelian tradition; rationalism and empiricism in short. I take offense that you believe I am just 'making up justifications', I used to be in favour of copyright, but the arguments against it are impeccable. Naturally, if you are a rationalist you must adhere to reason.
But you'll be unarguably breaking the law while doing it. Unarguably.
Well so what. You break the law probably 25 times a day. No one even knows half of the statue law in their own country, it's that massive, confusing and contradictory. You pay 12 different taxes on a single loaf of bread. Quite possibly no one has ever filled out a perfectly correct perfectly legal tax return.
Modern statue law, as it stands, has about as much philosophical justification and validity as the pompous pack of maddoff criminals who wrote it into law in the first place.
Again, you just have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever recieved a "review copy" of a DVD? I have, I can tell you the differnece: 1. it's legal for me to sell/buy/trade/give and rent any retail DVD disc. 2. But as soon as a try and sell/trade/rent a review copy of a DVD I'm comitting a crime.
3. And guess what? They both contain the same "bits".
Actually... no. There have been a few court cases where the verdict came down on the side of the seller. Simply stamping "Review copy, not for resale" does not take away your basic property rights to sell/trade/destroy something you own. As was noted earlier, if you signed some kind of contract to get that review copy you would be in violation of that contract and subject to whatever punishment was laid out in the terms but it would be a civil matter and basic contract law, not criminal and not a copyright issue.
Man, I ain't a communist, but communists have right to live. I disagree so much with Yandros, but considering his thoughts "left-wing mumble jumble" is really rude and makes you look like a right-wing fascist scum.
His anti-copyright views are based on an extreme-left-wing/communist "anti-copyright" ideal and this is well known, all I'm doing is stating a fact. "Copyright" is a right-wing ideal. It's the belief that when someone creates something themselves they have the right to sell their work for profit and to control how it is manufactured/released. Calling me a fascist does not change that quantifiable fact. I believe - strongly - that the person who creates something has the right to sell it for profit. That's believing in copyright.
allthough i bought the game, i'm using the crack, because this way i can have a "portable" version of it. i just have to take my savegames with me, copy them into the right folder of the "destination-pc" and can play right away from my usb-stick without any installation or activation. am i a bad person? :eek:
I take offense that you believe I am just 'making up justifications', I used to be in favour of copyright, but the arguments against it are impeccable. Naturally, if you are a rationalist you must adhere to reason.
1) Sorry, didn't mean to offend you
2) I'm a rationalist
Well so what. You break the law probably 25 times a day. No one even knows half of the statue law in their own country, it's that massive, confusing and contradictory. You pay 12 different taxes on a single loaf of bread. Quite possibly no one has ever filled out a perfectly correct perfectly legal tax return.
Modern statue law, as it stands, has about as much philosophical justification and validity as the pompous pack of maddoff criminals who wrote it into law in the first place.
Yep. Glad you've admitted it. In a previous post, you said you weren't breaking it. That's what I really disagreed with.
Anyway! You got interesting ideas that I'd like a lot to speak about, but they're all off-topic and unproper to be discussed in a Monkey Island forum, so I'm sorry but I won't reply to your politic / philosophical ideas.
Too bad, it would have been interesting. Just know that I agree with some of them, and totally disagree with others.
Actually... no. There have been a few court cases where the verdict came down on the side of the seller. Simply stamping "Review copy, not for resale" does not take away your basic property rights to sell/trade/destroy something you own. As was noted earlier, if you signed some kind of contract to get that review copy you would be in violation of that contract and subject to whatever punishment was laid out in the terms but it would be a civil matter and basic contract law, not criminal and not a copyright issue.
You're thinking of "promotional copies". Trust me review copies cannot be traded - regardless of whether you're "going to be punished" you cannot trade something that is copyrighted and is not allowed to be traded. For instance, if you are a cinema owner and I send you a review DVD of my movie - you absolutely cannot jump on ebay and sell it! That's illegal.
His anti-copyright views are based on an extreme-left-wing/communist "anti-copyright" ideal and this is well known, all I'm doing is stating a fact. "Copyright" is a right-wing ideal. It's the belief that when someone creates something themselves they have the right to sell their work for profit and to control how it is manufactured/released. Calling me a fascist does not change that quantifiable fact. I believe - strongly - that the person who creates something has the right to sell it for profit. That's believing in copyright.
I believe in copyright too.
Just saying you're using the worst way to argue, he got left-wing ideas, so what? Mumbling "blah blah" to what he says isn't kind at all, nor a good way to share opinions.
You do know there are normal people working on developing windows and basically everything microsoft does, right? You are also probably aware that they're not owners of the company and don't get money based on units sold, right? Did you know that people get fired if sales are bad?
That's the catch, if those people actually "developed" Windows instead of using the same 10 years old code over and over again, and their company's motto wasn't ripping off their customers (many of whom are forced customers) with the worst monopolising OS of them all, then I would be keen to buy their product and even feel proud about paying for my OS.
And that's how I felt when I bought Mac OS X Leopard which was cleary a huge step forward over Tiger, and in the same way I will buy Snow Leopard because I trust those Apple folks who (like the next company) want to sell copies of their soft but actually DO something to deserve it.
I believe in copyright too.
Just saying you're using the worst way to argue, he got left-wing ideas, so what? Mumbling "blah blah" to what he says isn't kind at all, nor a good way to share opinions.
The same argument-formula is used in many "left wing ideals". Like drugs: "why should peaceful recreational drug users be put in gaol? you don't have the right to tell me what I can and can't put into my body! legalize legalize legalize". I'm happy to call it what it is and if that makes me a fascist then at least it doesn't make me someone afraid to expose the argument. Personally I think there's nothing more offensive or rude then using a straw-man argument, but that's a discussion for another day.
You can disagree, there's no need to be agressive about it.
just one say that law is created by men, and although good in intention (sometimes), its actual effects cannot be deemed by virtue of the fact that it is law. Eg. Marijuana is illegal, but alcohol is not, an example of self serving laws (when they were made). So to say to break a law is a wrong thing to do by definition is a weak argument.
But, i have to say that intellectual property rights make sense. Not in a right wing left wing way, but from the capitalistic perspective. If a person has incentive to create intellectual property he will do so. Sure it can be argued that the best way to create something is for the sake of creating it, but in a capitalistic system that basically means starvation and death. Unless you protect your work.
The same argument-formula is used in many "left wing ideals". Like drugs: "why should peaceful recreational drug users be put in gaol? you don't have the right to tell me what I can and can't put into my body! legalize legalize legalize". I'm happy to call it what it is and if that makes me a fascist then at least it doesn't make me someone afraid to expose the argument. Personally I think there's nothing more offensive or rude then using a straw-man argument, but that's a discussion for another day.
You can disagree, there's no need to be agressive about it.
Didn't mean to be aggressive, I just firmly believe in freedom of speech, whatever your political, religious, sexual orientation is.
P.s. I'm not afraid to expose the argoment, I just preach respect.
just one say that law is created by men, and although good in intention (sometimes), its actual effects cannot be deemed by virtue of the fact that it is law. Eg. Marijuana is illegal, but alcohol is not, an example of self serving laws (when they were made). So to say to break a law is a wrong thing to do by definition is a weak argument.
But, i have to say that intellectual property rights make sense. Not in a right wing left wing way, but from the capitalistic perspective. If a person has incentive to create intellectual property he will do so. Sure it can be argued that the best way to create something is for the sake of creating it, but in a capitalistic system that basically means starvation and death. Unless you protect your work.
I didn't say that breaking a law is wrong by definition, I just said that pirating software is against the law, aside from being right or wrong
Hate to break it to most of you, but Yandros is pretty much dead on with the vast majority of his copyright law information. I'm not going to get into the whole philosophical and of the debate because, well... that's a completely different, and very large, messy, complicated thing that really doesn't belong here. But for the copyright violation stuff, yeah.. he's pretty much correct. Copyright and how it intersects with computing is a hobby of mine and has been for more than a decade.
Yes, the code of programs on your hard drive/CD-ROM/floppy/whatever are copied several additional times and modified during the regular course of simple execution (i.e. running) of the software. First a copy is made into ram, most probably with a partial copy sitting in a drive cache somewhere during and possible after. Then another partial copy is made into the various cache on the processor as specific parts are actually run. Somewhere in between the ram, the external/internal processor caches and that actual execution paths of the processor the code is compiled from it's basic executable form into processor specific microcode which are the actual instructions the processor can understand. From there it may again be recompiled/reordered further for performance gains as the processors look-ahead logic and such determine the best execution path for that code. These layers of mandatory additional copies is why we have EULAs in the first place. Since we have to, by the nature of out computer architechture, have the rights to make further copies beyond the physical disc we purchased it is required that we enter into some for of contractual agreement with the copyright owner. At least that was how one of the initial court rulings hashed out. Particular ins & outs of different aspects of that have changed back and forth over the past 40 years or so.
His point about changing the demo data on his HDD to change it into the full game... he is again, correct. Those bits are his physical property, and if he wants to flip them around basic copyright law can't do anything about that. His newspaper analogy is pretty apt there. The New Yorker can't prevent me from gluing my face onto the cover of my copy of their magazine. Now if that data is encrypted and that encryption provides "effective copy protection" then bypassing that encryption runs into the DMCA restrictions and is illegal. Even if what you want to do with the data is still 100% legal, you are still not allowed to break the encryption. This is probably why TTG put in place their very basic copyright control. By putting even a simple encryption into their game they gain a HUGE additional tool to swing at someone if they do ever need to combat some particular instance of copying.
We could discuss details about this for days... I'm up for it if anyone else is, but I dunno if the TTG guys will want us to us this forum for it.
Oh, and I apologize ahead of time if any of this is redundant by the time it hits to forum. I'm posting from the office and had to compose this over a fair bit of time between moments of doing actual work.
Hate to break it to most of you, but Yandros is pretty much dead on with the vast majority of his copyright law information. I'm not going to get into the whole philosophical and of the debate because, well... that's a completely different, and very large, messy, complicated thing that really doesn't belong here. But for the copyright violation stuff, yeah.. he's pretty much correct. Copyright and how it intersects with computing is a hobby of mine and has been for more than a decade.
Yes, the code of programs on your hard drive/CD-ROM/floppy/whatever are copied several additional times and modified during the regular course of simple execution (i.e. running) of the software. First a copy is made into ram, most probably with a partial copy sitting in a drive cache somewhere during and possible after. Then another partial copy is made into the various cache on the processor as specific parts are actually run. Somewhere in between the ram, the external/internal processor caches and that actual execution paths of the processor the code is compiled from it's basic executable form into processor specific microcode which are the actual instructions the processor can understand. From there it may again be recompiled/reordered further for performance gains as the processors look-ahead logic and such determine the best execution path for that code. These layers of mandatory additional copies is why we have EULAs in the first place. Since we have to, by the nature of out computer architechture, have the rights to make further copies beyond the physical disc we purchased it is required that we enter into some for of contractual agreement with the copyright owner. At least that was how one of the initial court rulings hashed out. Particular ins & outs of different aspects of that have changed back and forth over the past 40 years or so.
His point about changing the demo data on his HDD to change it into the full game... he is again, correct. Those bits are his physical property, and if he wants to flip them around basic copyright law can't do anything about that. His newspaper analogy is pretty apt there. The New Yorker can't prevent me from gluing my face onto the cover of my copy of their magazine. Now if that data is encrypted and that encryption provides "effective copy protection" then bypassing that encryption runs into the DMCA restrictions and is illegal. Even if what you want to do with the data is still 100% legal, you are still not allowed to break the encryption. This is probably why TTG put in place their very basic copyright control. By putting even a simple encryption into their game they gain a HUGE additional tool to swing at someone if they do ever need to combat some particular instance of copying.
We could discuss details about this for days... I'm up for it if anyone else is, but I dunno if the TTG guys will want us to us this forum for it.
Oh, and I apologize ahead of time if any of this is redundant by the time it hits to forum. I'm posting from the office and had to compose this over a fair bit of time between moments of doing actual work.
You're thinking of "promotional copies". Trust me review copies cannot be traded - regardless of whether you're "going to be punished" you cannot trade something that is copyrighted and is not allowed to be traded. For instance, if you are a cinema owner and I send you a review DVD of my movie - you absolutely cannot jump on ebay and sell it! That's illegal.
Yes, you can. Barring contractual obligations to the contrary (which again, would be a contract issue not a copyright issue) if they give you the item, you can do that you will with that physical item. Many gaming websites give away their review copies as contest freebies and such all the time. Copyright only comes into the picture at all if I make additional copies. Granted, in the vast majority of cases people who are receiving copies of a game/film/music are going to have contracts in place with NDA provisions, non-distribution clauses, and pages upon pages of other restrictions and usually hefty fines involved if they even sneeze the wrong way but that does not mean they are breaking the law if the violate those terms. In the realm of physical property first sale doctrine is pretty darn strong in this country and once I legally own and physical item there is very little anyone can do to dictate what I do with it, be that giving it away, burning it, or tying it to a mighty pirate and launching him out of a cannon.
Heh... sorry, the subject is bit of a touchy one for me. Our laws in that area have become such a cluster by now that pretty much any discussion is just riddled with factual and legal errors on all sides.
It just a matter of time. It just need more time to crack because of its bluray drive and because is different. An example is the gamecube which because it had mini dvd discs it didn't have much demand to crack it
Actually it is not cracked because the usual group of people who have incentives to crack it and the knowledge (the homebrewers) are served otherwise on the PS3. In my opinion the ones who are after free copies usually ride on the efforts of the homebrew szene and dont have the knowledge to hack it themselves.
And besides that it really is hard to hack!
That's the catch, if those people actually "developed" Windows instead of using the same 10 years old code over and over again, and their company's motto wasn't ripping off their customers (many of whom are forced customers) with the worst monopolising OS of them all, then I would be keen to buy their product and even feel proud about paying for my OS.
That's really beside the point. If you use it you should pay for it. That's the way it is when they work on something, no matter how flawed it is. It's not about feeling proud for what you have, it's about keeping an operation running. Just because it's difficult to see the difference between XP and Vista doesn't mean it's not big. Most things happen behind the text and buttons. : )
Yes, the code of programs on your hard drive/CD-ROM/floppy/whatever are copied several additional times and modified during the regular course of simple execution (i.e. running) of the software. First a copy is made into ram, most probably with a partial copy sitting in a drive cache somewhere during and possible after. Then another partial copy is made into the various cache on the processor as specific parts are actually run. Somewhere in between the ram, the external/internal processor caches and that actual execution paths of the processor the code is compiled from it's basic executable form into processor specific microcode which are the actual instructions the processor can understand. From there it may again be recompiled/reordered further for performance gains as the processors look-ahead logic and such determine the best execution path for that code.
The binary code isn't modified at all.
The instructions are just executed, and more informations are stored inside the RAM at runtime.
But the set of instructions remains exactly the same.
When you change a single instruction, you're cracking.
Basically a crack, as you surely know, skips some controls of "genuinity" of the software, whatever they are (depending from the protection chosen by the company), and literally jumps at the instruction(s) that would have been executed if the control was positive.
Modifying these controls and adding jump instructions is a law violation, since who buys the software accepts to leave it "as it is", it's a contract between seller and buyer.
That's really beside the point. If you use it you should pay for it. That's the way it is when they work on something, no matter how flawed it is. It's not about feeling proud for what you have, it's about keeping an operation running. Just because it's difficult to see the difference between XP and Vista doesn't mean it's not big. Most things happen behind the text and buttons. : )
True, however I never chose to use it, in fact I've been passionately avoiding it for the last 3 years now and I've been forced to go back to it for the pleasure of playing Tales of MI. If I had the choise I'd have stayed the heck away from it and play it on my "legally acquired" OS. You might say that nobody's forcing me to play this game hence it's my responsability to abide by the law. This is also true but I don't care, I've waited more than 13 years for a Monkey Island game and I'm so desperate to play it that it even made me go back to my most detested OS.
I'm sure this thread is gonna be closed soon, but until it isn't I'll share my opinions.
The binary code isn't modified at all.
The instructions are just executed, and more informations are stored inside the RAM at runtime.
But the set of instructions remains exactly the same.
When you change a single instruction, you're cracking.
Basically a crack, as you surely know, skips some controls of "genuinity" of the software, whatever they are (depending from the protection chosen by the company), and literally jumps at the instruction(s) that would have been executed if the control was positive.
Modifying these controls and adding jump instructions is a law violation, since who buys the software accepts to leave it "as it is", it's a contract between seller and buyer.
Yes, it is modified. Recompiled microcode is not the same bit pattern as the original code. It does not (usually) change the intended results of the program but it is none the less a change, just as a translation into another language would be a change to a novel. And as you yourself just said, if you signed a typical EULA you have a contract saying you will not modify those instructions. Violating that is breaking a contract, not copyright law. If the code is unencrypted and you can manage to the the code in runnable form without signing an EULA you are not breaking any law by flipping bits on your HDD to your hearts content.
Comments
Yandros i like the point you made here. Since we can get games for free when we actually buy games is for “donating” purpose to support the developers for creating a good game. I am curious as if a company ever try that.
People will buy it if they like it...
2. You're right, when DRM impeedes the rights of genuine customers they get a better product by downloading a version that has been stripped of it. This is especially true for technologies such as "ICT" on BD's (as the non-genuine product will work better).
Well this is just a silly argument. I could easily write a runtime patch, which just injects a DLL into the 'running copy' in RAM, and modifies the bits from there, to exactly the same effect. There is nothing special about the on-disk copy, it is just another instance of the same pattern.
Modifying bits inside my computer is what my computer automatically does all the time. It does not damage another person's physical property to modify bits inside my computer. Even if we accept your argument, the just 'punishment' for the 'crime' would be replacing the damaged property -- so that would be just undoing the patch at some later date.
Well the software isn't a thing to own at that point. If you are gifted a binary -- a package of bits -- and that gift is unconditional, then you now own that instance of that package of bits, just like if you were unconditionally gifted a car you would own that car. It's only legally something other than an unconditional gift if it is accompanied with a contract, but the free demo isn't; that is unless you agree to the EULA.
But you guys are completely missing the point here: don't you see that your own enthusiasm for making sure telltale gets their revenue is the best argument in favour of lifting piracy restrictions. If no one were outraged people are getting the game for free -- without paying -- then I'd actually be a little concerned. But everyone here is of such good conscience that not only are they willing to pay for the game, but they will take time out of their day to argue against anyone who suggests NOT paying might be technically legal
Let me just clarify about the console statuses. The PS3 is not moddable, it is a fully encrypted platform that would in theory take decades if not more to crack by brute force, and that no-one has yet to be able to pirate software for it. The 360 is the same, however, a weakness was discovered in the firmware that has allowed people to flash it to accept non-original discs. However, it has not been cracked, and will not run out-of-region discs or usigned content. The wii is the only current gen console to have been more or less fully craked, but I must admit it doesn't interest me much, as I don't share people enthusiasm for it.
If you wanna draw point from all this, it would be that more and more developers will move to consoles exlusivly, for while piracy is still possible on some machines, the threshold and technical know-how involved means it only affects a minuscule portion of their potential customer base.
However, as the package is a 5-episode "take-it-or-leave-it" deal, I think Telltale should have made the full episode 1 available for free (or, because they probably need to start making money back quickly, at least sell the first episode separately).
That way, you get people hooked on the game who want to know what happens next. And lots more people will pay in that scenario, rather than risk all their cash at once - it's a proven marketing technique.
I know that demos are supposed to do this, but they don't leave you with the same sense of "I've come so far... what happens next?" that playing the full first episode might leave you with. I believe Telltale have done it before with other games, but that it's usually a middle-of-the-series episode. If that's true, that wouldn't make me personally want to even try it out. Who wants something where they don't know what happened before and don't know what happens next???
3. And guess what? They both contain the same "bits".
For example if I gave you a digital image i created and you changed it would be legal as long as you didn't sell it or make it public etc except if you agreed not to change it. Physical property is something entirely different thing
Who cares if it is legal or not. It's just wrong thing to do. People don't care if its legal or not. What the matter with you, because you think its legal you can do whatever you like with things that you don't own?
Well I assume you are given a review disc under contract. Therefore if you rent, gifted or sold your review disc, you would be breaking your contract with the other party. But as I already pointed out three times, you have made no contract with telltale when you download their free demo. It is free, unconditionally so. Until you agree to the EULA (and assuming the EULA is legally binding) you have made no contract and there for no contract can be enforced with respect to the bits.
Interesting observation. I think consoles are more of a niche market. I personally don't like them very much, the games are overpriced and generally are lacking in storyline and gameplay. The controls are brutish. They have a niche market, like Apple, but I doubt there will be any significant movement toward consoles over and beyond what has already occurred. Locked-down platforms are tiresome and consumers quickly find that they want more freedom.
It just a matter of time. It just need more time to crack because of its bluray drive and because is different. An example is the gamecube which because it had mini dvd discs it didn't have much demand to crack it
Maybe read the conversation you joined mid-way before you post, champ?
You don't have to agree to a contract to make something illegal.
For example a hacker who hack a website who doesn't own. He didn't agree to anything but that doesn't make it legal
I read the consersation i just gave my two-cents there. You filthy pirate
At no point did I say that I pirated the game.
Here's a book on contract law. If you start reading now, maybe you can knock some of the stupid out of your head before Christmas.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QTMTWhNE03oC&dq=contract+law&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=L_fFiE_DjK&sig=FCLFr8XhXpcd_PyZawOLLaanEnY&hl=en&ei=KDlXSpe3PIGuNqu5wZ0I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6
However we'll probably disagree forever on the piracy problem, but what I don't really like about what you're saying is that you're trying to give philosophical excuses to piracy.
I'd agree if you said "give up, piracy will always be". But no, you're trying to deny that it's an illegal thing to do. I'd like you to just admit it's a crime.
You can say that it's useless to increase protection levels, you can say real fans will always pay for their game, that's fine to me and it's a good point.
But saying that "changing bits" is fair and legal is just wrong!
That's called piracy, you know?
I wasn't refering to you that you pirate games. I have actually support some of your argument. When you have an argument with someone you send the guy to read a book? That nice. Especially when you are the only in this thread to support such a thing.
Well I am disagreeing on philosophical grounds, and for a good reason.
1. Patents and copyrights have held back technology considerably throughout the last 300 years.
2. Copyrights are unenforceable.
3. Horrible things are committed in the name of copyright -- such as criminal convictions, jail terms, and large fines for what is by definition a passive and peaceful activity.
4. Intellectual property, philosophically speaking, is not real property. And the only way it's "ownership" can be enforced is through the use of state aggression against peaceful individuals. It's the "you made your car look like my car, therefore I'm going to point a gun at you until you alter your behaviour to fit my ideals" law / right; a violation of basic individual sovereignty.
5. Evidence suggests that copyright or lack thereof has no effect on revenue, at least in the realm of software. If you provide good quality, people will pay you for your efforts. If you provide lax quality they will pay you less. Pretty simple.
There's a good book, I highly recommend: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
(It's free online, but also you can buy it in print.)
But, again, philosophically speaking we could argue about EVERYTHING.
Even the use of money is a form of barter, we could disagree even with money's existence.
Or a murder: it's illegal because it's conventionally wrong to kill someone, but since everyhting's relative we could argue even on that.
Is it right that people must brake their instincts? Is the existence of laws right?
The fact is that we live in a society, we have conventions and ethic.
You live inside your house, which is protected by private property, I don't think you'd like me not to give a damn and occupy it.
So, we could cynically criticise everything speaking about philosophy, or just accept the fact that there are laws to be respected, unless we live under anarchy.
You're absolutely free to have your opinion, to fight for it, and even to pirate software 'cause you don't trust in copyright.
But you'll be unarguably breaking the law while doing it. Unarguably.
1. Patents and copyrights have held back technology considerably throughout the last 300 years. What a load of extreme left-wing communist rubbish.
2. Copyrights are unenforceable. Copyrights ARE enforcable and entitle the author to the legal right of their intellectual property. Get over it.
3. Horrible things are committed in the name of copyright -- such as criminal convictions, jail terms, and large fines for what is by definition a passive and peaceful activity. (more left-wing mumble-jumble)
4. Intellectual property, philosophically speaking, is not real property. And the only way it's "ownership" can be enforced is through the use of state aggression against peaceful individuals. It's the "you made your car look like my car, therefore I'm going to point a gun at you until you alter your behaviour to fit my ideals" law / right; a violation of basic individual sovereignty. (YAWN)
5. Evidence suggests that copyright or lack thereof has no effect on revenue, at least in the realm of software. If you provide good quality, people will pay you for your efforts. If you provide lax quality they will pay you less. Pretty simple. Go back to your warez-forum where all your online pirating buddies are waiting for you, cause we're sick of hearing your rubbish here.
I have always supported my game developers... that why I am buying two copys of monkey island... one for the PC and one for the Wii.
Man, I ain't a communist, but communists have right to live. I disagree so much with Yandros, but considering his thoughts "left-wing mumble jumble" is really rude and makes you look like a right-wing fascist scum.
Absolutely disagree.
Everything isn't relative. And this is an utter misrepresentation of philosophy. Relativism is to philosophy as religion is to science.
My arguments have a firm philosophical grounding in the Aristotelian tradition; rationalism and empiricism in short. I take offense that you believe I am just 'making up justifications', I used to be in favour of copyright, but the arguments against it are impeccable. Naturally, if you are a rationalist you must adhere to reason.
Well so what. You break the law probably 25 times a day. No one even knows half of the statue law in their own country, it's that massive, confusing and contradictory. You pay 12 different taxes on a single loaf of bread. Quite possibly no one has ever filled out a perfectly correct perfectly legal tax return.
Modern statue law, as it stands, has about as much philosophical justification and validity as the pompous pack of maddoff criminals who wrote it into law in the first place.
Actually... no. There have been a few court cases where the verdict came down on the side of the seller. Simply stamping "Review copy, not for resale" does not take away your basic property rights to sell/trade/destroy something you own. As was noted earlier, if you signed some kind of contract to get that review copy you would be in violation of that contract and subject to whatever punishment was laid out in the terms but it would be a civil matter and basic contract law, not criminal and not a copyright issue.
1) Sorry, didn't mean to offend you
2) I'm a rationalist
Yep. Glad you've admitted it. In a previous post, you said you weren't breaking it. That's what I really disagreed with.
Anyway! You got interesting ideas that I'd like a lot to speak about, but they're all off-topic and unproper to be discussed in a Monkey Island forum, so I'm sorry but I won't reply to your politic / philosophical ideas.
Too bad, it would have been interesting. Just know that I agree with some of them, and totally disagree with others.
I believe in copyright too.
Just saying you're using the worst way to argue, he got left-wing ideas, so what? Mumbling "blah blah" to what he says isn't kind at all, nor a good way to share opinions.
That's the catch, if those people actually "developed" Windows instead of using the same 10 years old code over and over again, and their company's motto wasn't ripping off their customers (many of whom are forced customers) with the worst monopolising OS of them all, then I would be keen to buy their product and even feel proud about paying for my OS.
And that's how I felt when I bought Mac OS X Leopard which was cleary a huge step forward over Tiger, and in the same way I will buy Snow Leopard because I trust those Apple folks who (like the next company) want to sell copies of their soft but actually DO something to deserve it.
You can disagree, there's no need to be agressive about it.
But, i have to say that intellectual property rights make sense. Not in a right wing left wing way, but from the capitalistic perspective. If a person has incentive to create intellectual property he will do so. Sure it can be argued that the best way to create something is for the sake of creating it, but in a capitalistic system that basically means starvation and death. Unless you protect your work.
Didn't mean to be aggressive, I just firmly believe in freedom of speech, whatever your political, religious, sexual orientation is.
P.s. I'm not afraid to expose the argoment, I just preach respect.
I didn't say that breaking a law is wrong by definition, I just said that pirating software is against the law, aside from being right or wrong
Yes, the code of programs on your hard drive/CD-ROM/floppy/whatever are copied several additional times and modified during the regular course of simple execution (i.e. running) of the software. First a copy is made into ram, most probably with a partial copy sitting in a drive cache somewhere during and possible after. Then another partial copy is made into the various cache on the processor as specific parts are actually run. Somewhere in between the ram, the external/internal processor caches and that actual execution paths of the processor the code is compiled from it's basic executable form into processor specific microcode which are the actual instructions the processor can understand. From there it may again be recompiled/reordered further for performance gains as the processors look-ahead logic and such determine the best execution path for that code. These layers of mandatory additional copies is why we have EULAs in the first place. Since we have to, by the nature of out computer architechture, have the rights to make further copies beyond the physical disc we purchased it is required that we enter into some for of contractual agreement with the copyright owner. At least that was how one of the initial court rulings hashed out. Particular ins & outs of different aspects of that have changed back and forth over the past 40 years or so.
His point about changing the demo data on his HDD to change it into the full game... he is again, correct. Those bits are his physical property, and if he wants to flip them around basic copyright law can't do anything about that. His newspaper analogy is pretty apt there. The New Yorker can't prevent me from gluing my face onto the cover of my copy of their magazine. Now if that data is encrypted and that encryption provides "effective copy protection" then bypassing that encryption runs into the DMCA restrictions and is illegal. Even if what you want to do with the data is still 100% legal, you are still not allowed to break the encryption. This is probably why TTG put in place their very basic copyright control. By putting even a simple encryption into their game they gain a HUGE additional tool to swing at someone if they do ever need to combat some particular instance of copying.
We could discuss details about this for days... I'm up for it if anyone else is, but I dunno if the TTG guys will want us to us this forum for it.
Oh, and I apologize ahead of time if any of this is redundant by the time it hits to forum. I'm posting from the office and had to compose this over a fair bit of time between moments of doing actual work.
why so serious?
Yes, you can. Barring contractual obligations to the contrary (which again, would be a contract issue not a copyright issue) if they give you the item, you can do that you will with that physical item. Many gaming websites give away their review copies as contest freebies and such all the time. Copyright only comes into the picture at all if I make additional copies. Granted, in the vast majority of cases people who are receiving copies of a game/film/music are going to have contracts in place with NDA provisions, non-distribution clauses, and pages upon pages of other restrictions and usually hefty fines involved if they even sneeze the wrong way but that does not mean they are breaking the law if the violate those terms. In the realm of physical property first sale doctrine is pretty darn strong in this country and once I legally own and physical item there is very little anyone can do to dictate what I do with it, be that giving it away, burning it, or tying it to a mighty pirate and launching him out of a cannon.
Heh... sorry, the subject is bit of a touchy one for me. Our laws in that area have become such a cluster by now that pretty much any discussion is just riddled with factual and legal errors on all sides.
Actually it is not cracked because the usual group of people who have incentives to crack it and the knowledge (the homebrewers) are served otherwise on the PS3. In my opinion the ones who are after free copies usually ride on the efforts of the homebrew szene and dont have the knowledge to hack it themselves.
And besides that it really is hard to hack!
That's really beside the point. If you use it you should pay for it. That's the way it is when they work on something, no matter how flawed it is. It's not about feeling proud for what you have, it's about keeping an operation running. Just because it's difficult to see the difference between XP and Vista doesn't mean it's not big. Most things happen behind the text and buttons. : )
The binary code isn't modified at all.
The instructions are just executed, and more informations are stored inside the RAM at runtime.
But the set of instructions remains exactly the same.
When you change a single instruction, you're cracking.
Basically a crack, as you surely know, skips some controls of "genuinity" of the software, whatever they are (depending from the protection chosen by the company), and literally jumps at the instruction(s) that would have been executed if the control was positive.
Modifying these controls and adding jump instructions is a law violation, since who buys the software accepts to leave it "as it is", it's a contract between seller and buyer.
Peace.
Yes, it is modified. Recompiled microcode is not the same bit pattern as the original code. It does not (usually) change the intended results of the program but it is none the less a change, just as a translation into another language would be a change to a novel. And as you yourself just said, if you signed a typical EULA you have a contract saying you will not modify those instructions. Violating that is breaking a contract, not copyright law. If the code is unencrypted and you can manage to the the code in runnable form without signing an EULA you are not breaking any law by flipping bits on your HDD to your hearts content.